Tabula_rasa

Problem is, that quite a few theists are in the category you just gave a broad brush to. Many theists do not see an issue with their religion and evolution. Perhaps you weren't aware of this?

Tabula_rasa

Starboy

For it to be in the realm of quantum physics the observations would have to involve complementary variables and the resolution of the experimental variables would have to be within the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. Outside that realm, classical treatments work just fine.

The duck-rabbit scenario has more to say about the human brain than it has to say about evolution, abiogenesis or creationism. It really is a big red herring fish story.

Starboy

Starboy

You are correct. That is one of the more common definitions of atheist. In my post I thought I made it clear that when I used the word it was in the sense of a-theist. The definition you refer to is one introduced by the Christians some time ago to replace the original definition that I prefer using.

Starboy

WinAce

GeoTheo, you are quite clearly mistaken. I do not reject the supernatural choice of our origins a priori, and I don't know of anyone that does. We do, however, reject it because there is no evidence to support it and quite a few very real problems with such scenarios. Aside from the fact that there is no described supernatural mechanism for creating even a single nucleotide, introducing a designer introduces the regressive problem of where he came from.

If you say 'he didn't need designing and exists timelessly' you're ultimately refuting yourself, because anything responsible for the existence of such a complex being would likely be enough to account for our universe in a much more parsimonious manner.

Another problem is that we cannot investigate any supernatural origin claims, but we can investigate those involving known mechanisms of chemistry because we basically know what the primordial earth was like. One needs to be taken entirely on faith, whereas you can apply the error-correcting methodology of science to see if the second one is a likely explanation.

Yet another problem is historical precedent--whenever we've had enough data to make a definite conclusion, it's always been a natural one. When we've appealed to the supernatural before, we've been universally dissapointed later. We can therefore safely conclude that if there are supernatural forces somewhere, they leave the universe to operate purely according to a set of natural laws, some of which are obviously still unknown, and our universe is therefore, for all intents and purposes, identical to one where no supernaturalism is present.

Mageth

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

But it is obvious to me, that the question of origins is not open to any of the people now participating in this thread besides me.

Sounds like a delusion of grandeur to me. Seek help.

JayAitch

Has it occurred to you that nobody confuses real ducks with rabbits? You can only switch your perception from duck to rabbit when looking at a cartoon silhouette which doesn't even have a realistic outline of either duck or rabbit. It is, in fact a highly stylised and simplified caricature of both. I suspect the same discription applies to both the 'origins' answers you claim to see.

Personally, I prefer the possibility of a real detailed answer even at the risk of going down a blind alley. After all, I can always backtrack and try a different route later.

John

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: JayAitch ]</p>

Starboy

Hello GeoTheo,

I must say that the tone of your discourse has improved greatly from what it was in our initial exchanges and for that I am thankful.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Please let me know if I am wrong. Of those arguing here there are two fundamentally different ways of understanding things. The first, which I think you ascribe to, is a spiritual way, which has the point of view that there is more to existence than can be understood by man, that there are things like the soul that cannot be measured or quantified in any way and there are things that are above the natural, supernatural if you will. Then there is the scientific point of view, which I share, that tries to work from what is currently understood and automatically rejects supernatural explanations.

In Christian discourse it is perfectly natural to talk about god being all around us and always with us. Christians have no problem thinking that miracles can occur everyday and to everyone. The extraordinary is not only accepted but is sought after. Christianity is an enterprise that is here to spread the “Good News!”

In scientific discourse it is absolutely not allowed to explain anything with “and then a miracle occurred.” Scientific explanations must be based on scientific observation and scientific theory. Extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. Science is an enterprise that is not perfect but is constantly improving by building on its successes and learning from its failures.

Most scientists would agree that Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a religious point of view. I have never understood why a real Christian would have any interest in arguing evolution with a scientist unless it was because they had no idea what science was about in the first place.

If you are a “true” Christian, there is nothing I can show you in the physical world that will convince you that the supernatural world doesn’t exist. I have given up on that sort of silliness long ago. If you as a Christian wish to convince me as a scientist that the supernatural does exist it will take supernatural evidence, evidence that has yet to be presented. The best we can do is understand each other’s point of view and the enormous differences between them.

Starboy

Caverdude

HATS OFF TO STARBOY.
That was beautifully stated. You echo my thinking exactly. There should not be any conflict between religion and science. They are two different non-overlapping diciplines.

echidna

Actually no. If you dare to post this in S&S, you will receive a wealth of quite legitimate alternative interpretations to the Coprenhagen Interpretation.

The Many Worlds Interpretation & Transactional Interpretation spring to mind as two of the most common, which have no observer paradoxes whatsoever. These are quite widely accepted amongst the physics community.

You may keep the Coprenhagen Interpretation as an open alternative, but it’s generally unpopular and by no means fact at all.

Starboy

I would also like to add that most physicists don't really use the interpretations much, they just crank the mathematical handle.

Starboy